Because someone telling a newspaper reporter that someone's father made a nonspecific threatening statement, that ought to be more than enough for a summary proceeding. You can't just blindly believe what you read, though: your discernment needs to be good enough to understand that the thirdhand report of what the father said is absolutely true, but the secondhand report of the son's disavowal of it is entirely false.

Sheesh, Who needs all this freakin obstructionist legal process standing in the way of what obviously needs to be done.